BAGTAS VS.

DOP

FACTS: The petitioner Alonzo Bagtas Y Alejandro was

convicted in seventeen criminal cases, sometimes between February
18 and May 14, 1948. He was sentenced by final judgements of the
Courts of First Instance of Manila to an aggregate penalty of 6
years, 4 months and 26 days of imprisonment and to indemnify the
sum of P 43,436.45 with the subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency in each case and to pay the cost. The petitioner
contended the sentence.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subsidiary imprisonment should
be eliminated from the penalty imposed upon the petitioner as
reduced to thrice the duration of the gravest penalty imposed on
him in accordance with article 70.
HELD: We hold that the correct rule is to multiply the
highest principal penalty by 3 and the result will be the
aggregate principal penalty which the prisoner has to serve, plus
the payment of all the indemnities which he has been sentenced.
 PEOPLE VS. FAJARDO

FACTS: Pascual Fajardo was convicted of the crime of

damage to property through reckless imprudence and sentenced to
pay a fine of P270.10 and the costs. He appealed to this court,
but his appeal was dismissed for the reason that no brief was
submitted within the reglementary period. Judgment was entered
against him and the record was returned to the lower court. When
the judgment was to be executed, it was found that the accused
was insolvent, for which reason the sheriff returned the writ
unsatisfied.
ISSUE: Whether an accused who has been sentenced only to
pay a fine may be compelled to undergo subsidiary imprisonment,
in the manner prescribed by law, in case he is found’ insolvent
because he has no property with which to pay.
HELD: No. ART. 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict
has no property with which to meet the pecuniary liabilities
mentioned in paragraphs 1st, 2nd and 3rd of the next preceding
article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability
at the rate of one day for each 2 pesos and 60 centavos, subject
to the following rules. The judgment of the lower court fails to
impose subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency for
indemnification to the owner of the banca, but only imposes
subsidiary punishment as to costs. In this respect the judgment
is erroneous and should be modified.